Friday, August 24, 2007

...reveals that corporations (again) are not model citizens at playing by the rules. The scandal here isn't about "the cult of the amateur" abusing the open format to mislead and misinform (barring a prank or two, like George "Wanker" Bush, which I find funny btw). This scandal is another cautionary tale about corporations and institutions assuming to use social media as another tool to propagate one-way PR agendas the same way they've always done. For these monoliths, Wikipedia is simply another PR channel, seemingly without pesky editors. But there are editors - people. And user-created police controls like Wikiscanner only make transparent what always was - big media machines change the lines of text to suit their goals and this activity is labelled under the guise of "information".

3 comments:

but isn't that the POINT of wikipedia? experts inserting their viewpoints? aren't these corporations experts on their own businesses?

I think it's GREAT that those adulterating are exposed--now, a little social pressure for honesty--but I don't think companies should be criticized for taking action against the distribution of negative impressions against them.

I'd have greater ethical issues (already, I am mostly making a point just for argument's sake) if their actions weren't inherent in wikipedia's service, but it's not like they were breaking into the site.